055. montefiore history at roehampton pdf
Post on 09-Apr-2015
50 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Among Women: The Participation ofMen in the Froebel and Montessori
Societies.
Dr Kevin J. BrehonySchool of Education
The University of ReadingEmail: k.j.brehony@rdg.ac.uk
Paper presented to the History of Education Society's Annual ConferenceBreaking boundaries: Gender, politics and the experience of education. Winchester 3-5 December 1999
Introduction
In this paper I look at a sample of men who were closely associated with
and were active within the Froebelian and Montessorrian movements in
England. My interest in these men developed from an increasing
realisation that these educational movements may be best understood as
forming parts of the women's movement that sprang from first wave
feminism. I was motivated by a desire to try to establish what if anything
was sociologically specific about these men who, unlike the vast majority
of their contemporaries, devoted large parts of their lives to social action
within movements composed overwhelmingly of women. Employing
what Ricouer terms, 'the hermeneutics of suspicion'1 I suspected that
these men would have sought to dominate the organisations they were
members of and act in traditional ways towards the women they were
associated with.
Before considering in some detail the individual and collective
characteristics of the men selected for study it was first necessary to
establish the extent to which it was legitimate to regard the Froebel and
Montessori movements as comprising parts of the women's movement.
Jürgen Reyer and Ann Taylor Allen have made such a case for the
German Froebel movement2 but as far as is known no one has done so for
these movements in England. In order to reach an answer to this question,
evidence regarding the positions held by leading Froebelians and by
Montessori is reviewed.
Gender, in contrast with sex, is a relational concept and by virtue of this
it is not possible to tell the stories of the men without also outlining the
stories of women. Specifically, this necessitated some consideration of
the politics of the struggle for women's emancipation for without this the
significance of the actions of the Froebelian and Montessorian men may
be grasped only partially.
In What Sense Were The Froebel And Montessori Movements
Part Of The Womens Movement?
The women's movement that emerged in England in the mid-Nineteenth
Century is best known for its involvement in the struggle for women's
suffrage that culminated in the granting of votes for women over the age
of thirty in 1918. Despite universal suffrage not being gained until 1928
this was the high water mark of 'first wave' feminism3 as feminism after
the First War ceased to be a mass movement4 and did not become so
again until the 1970s. It would be inaccurate, however, to characterise
'first wave' feminists as being solely concerned with the suffrage
question. Other issues that were at the forefront of feminist campaigns
were the removal of legal barriers to women's citizenship and access to
secondary and higher education.
Anne Taylor Allen, whose work on the kindergarten movement in
Germany and the USA has done so much to illuminate its links to
nineteenth century feminist movements, concludes that 'equal rights'
feminism associated with the suffrage movement and 'familial' or
'relational' feminism, the kind embraced by the kindergarteners, were
complementary rather than conflicting approaches.5
Spiritual Motherhood
Both the Froebelians and the Montessorians adhered to the position
known as 'separate spheres' regarding the roles of men and women. This
perspective held that rather than women demanding equality with men
they should escape the bondage of the domestic ideology that confined
middle class women to the home by pursuing separate but equal roles in
the public sphere; the sphere of paid work. These roles were to be an
extension of those imposed on essentialised women but instead of
confining women to the domestic hearth, caring and nurturing could be
projected as qualities needed in the public sphere. 'Spiritual Motherhood'6
or 'Social Maternalism', was a variant of this perspective which was
prevalent within the Froebel movement. Froebel himself repeated
continually: "The fate of nations lies far more in the hands of women-of-
mothers- than in those of rulers, or of the numerous innovators who are
scarcely intelligible to themselves. We must train the educators of the
human race, for without them the new generations cannot fulfil their
mission." (Shireff) It was a concept that was widely accepted within the
Froebel movement and beyond. The term ‘spiritual mother’ was used by
the Ronges7 the founders of the first kindergarten in England. Countless
references and allusions to the notion occur in the writings of Baroness
Bertha Marenholtz Bulow, Froebel's indefatigable exegete. In her book
Women's Educational Mission the Baroness wrote a succinct outline of
the position:
Until the mothers amongst the lower classes are a better
educated race, the education of their children must be the care
of the educated classes. Here is a wide field open for all the
efforts of a truly maternal heart. It is for woman to effect a
reformation in all the charitable and educational institutions
which now exist, to increase their number, extend their
influence, and make them work in connexion with each other.8
Emily Shirreff writing three years later in 1858 and some years before
she helped found the Froebel Society in England, explained in similar
vein that, ‘what society wants from women is not labour, but refinement,
elevation of mind, knowledge, making its power felt through moral
influence and sound opinions. It wants civilisers of men, and educators of
the young.’9
Montessori's feminism
Neither of Montessori's principal biographers,10 accorded much
significance to the fact that Montessori was a woman as were most of her
followers.11 Neither of them addressed the question of what it meant to be
a woman in medicine in Italy during a period when women all over
Europe were struggling to be admitted into the public sphere. As Burstyn
has pointed out, these accounts also miss the fact that Montessori's
choices were made for her by a male establishment and that her, 'routes
for self expression were dictated by the fact that she was a woman'.12
Burstyn described Montessori as a feminist13 while Cohen noted that she
was, 'active in the women's rights movement'.14 It is indisputable that
however these terms are construed, Montessori like the Froebelian
women should be seen as part of the women's movement. In her book,
'The Montessori Method' there are a number of hints that she accepted
the separate spheres argument and its concomitant notion, spiritual
motherhood. When speaking, for instance, of the expected affects of the
'communising' of the 'maternal function' in the Case dei Bambini, the
nursery she established in the model tenements of San Lorenzo in Rome,
Montessori referred to the 'new woman' who would come forth like a
butterfly from its chrysalis and 'be liberated from all of those attributes
which once made her desirable to man only as a source of the material
blessings of existence'. This 'new woman' would be, 'like man, an
individual, a free human being, a social worker...'.15
The notion of women as mothers to society, as carers and social workers
is present in her discussion of the role of the directress of the Children's
Houses. She is constructed as, 'a cultured and educated person' who is
also 'a true missionary, a moral queen among the people', an 'almost
savage people', to whom she dedicates her time and her life as well as
living among them.16
Montessori's discussion of the kind of person who would make a good
directress underlines the fact that it was principally women who, to use
the Althusserian phrase, were interpellated by her discourse.17 In
America, Montessori's loyal supporters were almost exclusively women
but in England many of her English followers were men. Of the original
twenty eight members of the Montessori Committee, fourteen were men18
Men, mainly from the 'academy', the newly established University
Departments of Education were also prominent in the public discussion
of the Montessori method although much of their contributions were
critical.19. While at the height of enthusiasm for Montessori, men such as
Holmes or Kimmins typically addressed meetings, the large audience, as
at a meeting in London in 1913 at the Caxton Hall was said to have been,
'composed almost entirely of Ladies'.20 Nevertheless, unfavourable
contrasts were frequently drawn in the press with the Montessori
movement in America where, it was declared, 'women played a much
larger part in American education than in England'21
The Froebel and Montessori movements may justifiably therefore be
regarded as women's movements. Not just because they consisted mainly
of women or because it was women who they mainly addressed but
principally because they offered to middle class women a redefinition of
their selves and identities which would enable their entry into the public
sphere. That theirs was a professionalising project is something that
many have commented upon.22 However, this being so does not
disqualify these movements from being considered part of the wider
women's movement.
The Sample
As has been noted, the Montessori movement in England contained
within its initial organisation several men in positions of leadership. At a
preliminary meeting to discuss the foundation of a Froebel Society held
on 4th November 187423 it was agreed by the women present that a letter
be sent inviting membership to several sympathisers who included one
man, Professor Joseph Payne. Payne was the holder of the first Chair of
Education in England at the College of Preceptors.24 He was also a
supporter of women's education and he was a member of the central
working committee of the Women's Education Union. On his death, his
place on the Committee of the Froebel Society was taken by W.
Sonnenschein; the second of several men to participate in the running of
the Froebel Society.
In choosing to discuss only some of these men inevitably there is a
certain degree of arbitrariness in the choice of this sample. The principle
criteria adopted in its selection was sustained involvement in the formal
organisations of these movements. On these grounds Michael Sadler was
excluded despite his being at one time a President of the Froebel Society.
Although his occupancy of this position may be taken to indicate some
sympathy with the Froebelians, this was mainly an honorary position of
short duration. Similarly, Robert Morant, Sadler's great rival, was
rejected even though for a brief period he was a member of the Council
of the Froebel Society25.
For the most part, the men discussed here were cultural outsiders. They
were nearly all excluded in some way from the hegemonic ruling bloc of
landed capital, Tory politics and the Church of England. This was also
the case of the women in the movements they were involved in except
that these women were doubly excluded; once due to their alternative
culture and twice as women. Nevertheless, the men considered here were
not excluded from all aspects of the hegemonic culture. Claude
Montefiore, for example, was a Tory, like most other extremely wealthy
men. An affiliation that became much stronger when, at the end of the
century, the owners of capital deserted the Liberal Party. Montefiore
seems to have been an exception but it appears that religion rather than
politics was of the greater importance in confirming the identity of these
men as cultural outsiders. Until, for example, the Prince of Wales
introduced Jews such as the Rothschilds, the Sassoons and Sir Ernest
Cassell into his 'smart set', they were not, on the whole, acceptable in
'society'.26 Unitarians were in a similar social position as was recorded by
Molly Hughes who, while in charge of teacher training at Bedford
College, was told by a wealthy member of the college council that
Unitarians were 'looked upon as atheists, and by many as inferior
socially'.27
It seems almost unnecessary to point out that they were also supporters
of women's education which also was a minority position among men in
general and some of the Froebelians like Herford and Montefiore were
Germanophiles. Given the fact that it originated in Germany, it is not
altogether surprising that the Froebel movement contained within its
ranks large numbers of Germanophiles. This observation is so obvious
that it is surprising that it has largely gone unrecognized by most of the
chroniclers of the Froebel movement in England. This is unfortunate as
its significance lies mainly in the symbolic role played by Germany in the
discourse of those forces in England that were pursuing a strategy of
modernization. In many respects, Germany occupied a similar position
to that which the Soviet Union did in relation to scientists and other Left
intellectuals in the nineteen thirties. It was Germany that provided for the
modernizers of the late nineteenth century their image of the future.28
William Henry Herford
The first man to be considered here was a confirmed Germanophile but
perhaps more importantly the most unequivocal in his support of the
women's movement. After attending Shrewsbury school William
Herford entered Manchester College, York in 1837 to prepare for the
Unitarian ministry. On completion of his course he was offered a post as
a minister at Lancaster but chose instead to continue studying in
Germany. In 1842 he became a student at the university of Bonn.
Following a period in Berlin, Herford returned to England in 1845 and
Lancaster, where he agreed to be a minister to the Unitarian congregation
for a year. Before the year was up he left Lancaster to become the tutor of
Lady Byron's grandson, Ralph King. Lady Byron then persuaded Herford
to accompany her grandson to the Pestalozzian school at Hofwyl in
Switzerland which was then under the control of Wilhelm von
Fellenberg. Her intention was that Herford would study the Pestallozian
system and on returning to England, open an English Hofwyl. Herford
went to Hofwyl in 1847 but returned to Lancaster in 1848 not as a teacher
but a minister once more. However in 1850 he opened a boys school run
on Pestalozzian lines which attracted the support of Unitarian families
from a wide area. At its height, the numbers of boys in the school reached
twenty-one but fell by 1860 to sixteen or seventeen.29 In the following
year, Herford closed the school and left Lancaster and returned to
Switzerland. In 1863 he returned to Manchester and after again practising
as a minister, opened what became Ladybarn House school30 with his
daughter Caroline, in 1873. This was a coeducational school31 run on
Froebelian lines. Herford was a strong supporter of women's education
who campaigned for the right of women to attend universities and
coeducation was seen by him as beneficial to girls. By this time, Herford
was a committed Froebelian and he organised the foundation of the
Manchester Kindergarten Association in 1872.32 In 1880 he sent a letter
to the Froebel Society requesting its co-operation in the forming of a
deputation to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council,
Mundella for the 'introduction of the Froebel System into the
Government Elementary schools'.33 The Froebel Society agreed to
Herford's proposal and a meeting was held at 48 Wimpole street on the
24th June to discuss the form and composition of the deputation. Herford
was present at this meeting as were five other men and seven women but
not one woman is recorded as having spoken.34 In spite of this, Herford
proposed that the deputation be led by Emily Shirreff the Society's
President and Alfred Bourne put a resolution to the meeting containing
the demands of the Froebel Society.
Rev. Alfred Bourne (1832-1908)
Much of Alfred Bourne’s childhood was spent in Jamaica to which he
returned in 1863 as the superintendent of cotton plantations. After four
years study at New College, Hampstead he obtained a BA degree in
1858. Ordination as a Congregationalist Minister followed. In June 1868
Bourne was appointed Secretary of the British and Foreign, School
Society. This body had begun in 1808 as the Royal Lancasterian Society
and when it emerged six years later it aimed to promote, ‘the Education
of the Labouring and Manufacturing Classes of Society of every
Religious Persuasion’..35 As this objective indicates, the form of
monitorial schooling provided by the British and Foreign, School Society
was ‘unsectarian’, a label which, when decoded usually signified
Nonconformist. Like its rival in the promotion of monitorial schools, the
Anglican, National Society also trained teachers in the conduct of their
respective monitorial systems. After the Education Act of 1870 the
demand for teachers increased in line with the expansion in the numbers
of elementary schools. Bourne played a prominent part in the expansion
of training provision at the British Society’s colleges at Stockwell and
Borough Road.36 In 1872, the Society opened new colleges for women at
Darlington and Swansea and another for infant school mistresses at
Saffron Walden in 1884. It was Bourne who appointed Eleanore
Heerwart in 1874 to open a kindergarten training department at
Stockwell. This was followed in 1876 by the opening of the Stockwell
Kindergarten Model School.
The colleges of the British and Foreign Society formed the working class
wing of the Froebel movement. Their students were drawn from the
respectable layer of the working class and the kindergarten was given an
inflection which made it more suited to the conditions existing in
working class schools. This made Bourne a powerful gatekeeper
representing the Froebel movement to the state elementary school system
and that system to the Froebel movement. His main objective was the
reform of state elementary schooling rather than the implementation of
the kindergarten within them.
Herford, on the other hand, aimed to introduce 'the kindergarten
principle' which he defined as a focus on the ends, rather than the means,
of schooling.37 This approach was unlikely to appeal to those like Bourne
who were seeking to apply rational models of problem solving in which
the ends were limited but clearly defined and who were prepared to
accept the routinisation of school work. Unlike Herford, who was a
maximalist in his demands that the full kindergarten be implemented,38
Bourne was prepared to seek a compromise with the Education
Department in order to gain a toehold for Froebelian methods in the
elementary schools.
In other respects too Bourne was different to Herford. While Herford ran
schools and wrote an exegesis of Froebel's system39 Bourne acted in the
public sphere of education policy and administration. In 1884 he
organised a demonstration of the kindergarten at the International
Exhibition on Health and Education held in London.40 Bourne also
appeared as a witness before the Cross Commissioners. In 1886 the
Council of the Froebel Society received a telegram from Claude
Montefiore to say that he had communicated with the Secretary of the
Royal Commission on Elementary Education and that a formal request
from the Council should be forwarded to the Commission regarding the
examination of a representative. The meeting agreed to select a Bourne.41
At its next meeting, the Council considered a letter from Marie
Lyschinska,42 that contained the suggestion that 'a lady be associated with
W. Bourne to represent the views of the Froebel Society before the
Commissioners' The Hon Mrs Buxton was selected to accompany him.43
Lyschinska was a close ally of Froebel's grand-niece, Henriette Schrader-
Breymann who was vigorous in her support for Spiritual Motherhood.
And while her action in suggesting that a woman accompany Bourne is
open to interpretation, it is at least plausible to suggest that this was the
action of someone identified with the women's movement.
During the course of his appearance before Cross as Secretary of the
British and Foreign School Society, Bourne was examined at some length
but not about the kindergarten. At the end of his evidence he stated that
he was prepared to give evidence on the kindergarten but only if he
should be chosen as part of a deputation from the Froebel Society.44
Presumably this was to ensure the Hon Mrs Buxton's presence but they
were not called and so his views on the kindergarten were not
presented.45
Bourne was also for many years the Principal of Stockwell College after
having formerly been Secretary to its Ladies Committee.46 In his later
years he suffered from ill-health and, as the Froebelian Elsie Murray put
it, Lydia Manley47 was 'practically Principal' from 1884 until her death in
1911. Officially, she was only made Principal in 1892. The evidence is
admittedly slight but in Murray's observation may be read the resentment
felt by women staff that their college Principal was a man.
Bourne's active involvement with the Froebel Society lasted until his
retirement due to ill health in 1890.48 Nevertheless, it was not his only
educational cause and in 1889 at the height of the craze for Sloyd49,
Bourne, in his capacity as the Sloyd Association's secretary wrote a letter
to the Froebel Society offering the financial terms of a merger proposal.
Claude Goldsmid Montefiore (1858-1938)Claude Goldsmid Montefiore (1858-1938) like Bourne was involved in
the affairs of the Froebel Society for many years. His mother was a
member of the Goldsmid family which, like that of the Montefiore's, was
one of the elite families of Anglo-Jewry which were linked through ties
of business and marriage50. The young Claude Montefiore was educated
privately and for much of that time he was taught by Philip Magnus
(1842-1933), a minister at the West London Reform Synagogue who
became an archetypal, 'industrial trainer' or modernizer51. In 1878
Montefiore entered Balliol College Oxford where he gained a First and
formed a life long friendship with its Master, the formidable Benjamin
Jowett.
Montefiore's career was somewhat untypical as, until the 1880's, few
sons of the Anglo-Jewish elite attended the ancient universities. This was
partly due to the barriers, which until the passing of the Universities
Tests Act of 1871, Jews were confronted by. A corollary of their
disbarment on religious grounds was their tendency to seek to enter the
City rather than the professions for which most university graduates were
prepared.
On leaving Oxford he went to study in Berlin as had Magnus before him.
On his return to England, Montefiore became involved in the founding of
the Jewish Religious Union for the Advancement of Liberal Judaism.
This was a radical reform group that stood, in relation to conservative
Jewish Orthodoxy in a way analogous to the standing of Nonconformity
to the Established Church.52
'Amply endowed with wealth, learning and leisure'53, Montefiore devoted
the rest of his life to writing religious texts, and fostering Jewish and non-
Jewish educational ventures, among which was the Froebel Society.
While in Berlin he had encountered the Froebel movement and, on
returning to England in 1883 he soon became the honorary secretary of
the Society and subsequently its Chair54, a post he held until 1904.55
When it was first proposed by Emily Shirreff that Montefiore become the
permanent chair of the council it was minuted that he, "dwelt first on
what he considered to be his own insufficient knowledge of our work
however great his interest in it".56 Nevertheless, he was elected at the next
meeting on Nov 28th. This protestation of ignorance of the Froebelian
position does not appear to have been an expression of modesty on
Montefiore's part. His biographer, Lucy Cohen, asked him if the
kindergarten system had an 'especial appeal to him?' He responded
negatively and explained that his involvement was due to his mother's
friend, the prominent Froebelian, Julia Salis Schwabe asking him to join
the Committee.57 For someone who professed, at best, only a qualified
enthusiasm for the kindergarten, Montefiore's commitment to the
movement that promoted it was extraordinary. In 1897 when the financial
situation of the Froebel Society was described as "serious" because its
income was £179 and its expenditure £222, Montefiore donated £40 to
make up the deficit.58 His philanthropy was also vital to the
establishment of the Froebel Education Institute in 1892 which was a
project instigated by Julia Salis Schwabe. He served as treasurer and
chairman of the Froebel Education Institute.59 Later, in 1921, Montefiore
lent the money necessary for the purchase of Grove House which became
the headquarters of the Froebel Education Institute.60
Montefiore was also involved in the Sesame Club as one of the three
members of the Froebel Society who served on its committee.61 This was
a broadly based organisation that attracted individuals and organisations
interested in educational reform. From this emerged, in 1899, the Sesame
League which aimed to establish a 'House for Home Life Training'
modelled on the Pestalozzi-Froebel House in Berlin.62 This latter
institution was the organisational base of Henriette Schrader-Breymann
whose support for Spiritual Motherhood has already been noted and
whose thinking and practice was a key resource for Froebelian
revisionism.63 When in England, Henriette Schrader-Breymann stayed
with the Montefiore family. 64
Like Bourne, Montefiore seems to have been given, or he appropriated,
tasks that required action in the political or public sphere. At the Froebel
Society Council's discussion of the decision of the London School Board
not to replace Miss Lychinska. Montefiore reported that he had that day
seen Mr Davies65 and Mr Graham Wallas at the School Board Offices at
Mr Davies' request. Davies had wanted to know what teaching work was
actually done by the Society and what classes for Elementary school
teachers they were holding. He stated that he would be glad if the Society
could devise a scheme of kindergarten instruction for teachers of the
Board. It was decided that a sub committee would be set up consisting of
Kate Phillips, Alice Woods, Bowen , Findlay and Montefiore to draw up
a scheme..66
Montefiore had himself been a member of the London School Board
although for a period of three months only. In 1888 he was co-opted to
represent Tower Hamlets. 67 A vacancy had occurred following the
resignation of Edward North Buxton and since, according to Montefiore,
there were over 3,000 Jewish children attending Board Schools in Tower
Hamlets, his cooption was, in part, motivated by the desire to represent
them68. He lost his seat at the School Board election later in the year
when he stood as a Tory. The poll in Tower Hamlets was topped by
Annie Besant who was then a member of the Marxist, Social Democratic
Federation and who appears to have had more success in appealing to the
Yiddish speaking working class Jewish voters than Montefiore. Politics,
however, does not appear to have held the attraction for him that it did
for his elder brother Leonard who died in 1879 at the age of twenty six.69
Leonard was a friend of Alfred Milner a leading Tory and Imperialist.
Claude also became a friend of Milner and he shared his politics. He was
also a prominent anti Zionist believing that Jews should assimilate into
the societies they lived in.
Perhaps this desire to assimilate was the motive for his philanthropy. Not
only did he rescue the Froebel Society on several occasions but he also
provided substantial sums for the Froebel Educational Institute.
Men in the Montessori MovementThere is much less evidence concerning the men who supported
Montessori in England than there is for men in the Froebel Movement.
This is partly because the Montessori Association archives are not
publicly available assuming they still survive. It is also due no doubt to
the attitude of Maria Montessori to her followers which was highly
autocratic and demanding of absolute loyalty. Montessori men are as a
consequence rather shadowy figures.
Rev. Bertram HawkerBertram Hawker, was a friend of the former Chief Inspector for
Elementary schools, Edmond Holmes70 who was himself an enthusiast for
Montessori's work. Hawker had founded with his wife in 1908, the
Kindergarten Union of South Australia. They also established a
Kindergarten in Adelaide. After visiting Montessori in Rome Hawker
returned to England. In 1912 together with Holmes among others he
helped found the Montessori Society of the United Kingdom. He also
opened the first Montessori school in England in a room in his house at
East Runton in Norfolk. Around twelve pupils chosen from the local
elementary school attended and they were taught by Evelyn Lydbetter71
who was one of the first teachers in England to take Montessori's training
course.72 In 1914, Hawker organised a conference there. The subject was
the Montessori System of Education and Holmes the Buddhist ex -Chief
HMI was among those invited to speak.73 At the conference a resolution
was put that the Earl of Lytton, who was also the president of Men’s
League for Women’s Suffrage74 and Hawker form a committee to
organise further conferences to bring, ‘together not only representatives
of the Montessori movement but of all kindred movements...’.75
Claude Claremont
Claremont's early work with Dr. Montessori was interspersed with
postgraduate studies at the London School of Economics, University
College, London and the University of Rome, where he worked in the
fields of psychology, anthropology and physiology. He also studied the
mathematical calculus for evaluating statistical data under the Eugenicist
and Fabian, Karl Pearson...Claude Claremont attended Dr. Montessori's
training course in Rome in 1913 following his graduation as a B.Sc. in
Engineering from the City and Guilds College of London University. A
London study circle was organised by Claude Claremont who acted as
Montessori's interpreter in 1914 when next she held her training course in
England.
Following three years as head of the Montessori department at St.
George's School, Harpenden, he moved to St Christopher's School,
Letchworth where he also held a similar position. In 1922 a teachers’
training college was opened by the Theosophical Educational Trust at
Letchworth. This was intended to prepare teachers for work in co-
educational schools. Under its auspices, Claude Claremont,76 ran a
Montessori training course there.
From 1925 to 1960, Professor Claremont was principal of the
Montessori training centres in London and Cranleigh. He also lectured all
over Europe and wrote many pamphlets and books on Montessori.77 In
1963 he moved to the United States where he worked as a director of
training, first in California, and later at the Southeastern Institute for
Montessori Studies. in September, 1967, he returned to California to start
a new training centre in Santa Monica. His wife, Francesca, a noted
historian and novelist, continued running the centre they had started
together after his death in December, 196778.
Men Supporters Of Women's Suffrage
The organisations formed by men to support suffragists and suffragettes
are not strictly analogous to the educational movements considered here.
If a parallel was required then a far better one would be Joseph Tate, the
first secretary of the Equal Pay League founded in 1903 and subsequently
the National Federation of Women Teachers.79 Nevertheless, some men
did form organisations to support suffragists and suffragettes and by so
doing demonstrated their ability to accept the leadership of women and
play supportive as well as subordinate roles within the women's
movement. Among the most prominent of these men were Laurence
Housman brother of the poet A.E. Housman who was a member of the
Men’s League for Women’s Suffrage which supported the 'constitutional'
suffrage cause. He was also a member of the Men’s Social and Political
Union which supported the militant suffragettes. These were essentially
‘auxiliary organisations’80 that followed and supported the women's
struggle for the suffrage. Other notable supporters were and Frederick
Pethick Lawrence, William Baillie Weaver81 and George Lansbury.
Significantly, the latter two were theosophists which was one of several
elements often present in a cultural and political ensemble that also
linked feminism to anti-vivisection, children's rights, vegetarianism and
pacifism.82
The Politics of the Froebelians and Montessorians in relation
to the women's struggle
The adoption of political stances, even those to do with women's suffrage
was something the Froebel Society tended to avoid. An example of this
neutrality was the refusal to send delegates to the National Union of
Women's Suffrage Societies' demonstration on 13th June 190883 as, 'the
question of Women's Suffrage was outside the scope of the Froebel
Society's work.'84 A rare exception to this lack of political engagement
was a decision to support by signing the Women's Local Government
Society's memorial to Lord Salisbury, 'in respect of the position of
women in education in England and Wales.' This referred to the fear that
many women had that they would not be permitted membership of the
new Local Education Authorities that were about to replace the School
Boards on which women could sit. Paradoxically, Montefiore was asked
to sign on behalf of the Council85 Later in the year even this expression of
support was rescinded when the committee decided that as the election of
women on to local government boards lay beyond the scope of the
Society no delegate would be sent to a conference on the Education Bill
organised by Women's local Government. Society.86
Less is known about the attitudes of the organised Montessorians but as
individuals they seem to have been much more politically engaged than
the Froebelians. Many feminist teachers in the National Federation of
Women teachers discussed Montessori's ideas and attempted the
implementation of her system.87 Among these perhaps the most well
known was Muriel Matters.88
Noticing in a newspaper that Muriel Matters had returned from studying
under Montessori in Barcelona Sylvia Pankhurst immediately contacted
her with a view to her organising a Montessori class at the Mothers Arms
in London's East End. Matters was a militant suffragette and a member
of the Women's Freedom League.89 A balloonist, she distributed leaflets
over the Mall in the heart of London from a dirigible in January 1908 on
the occasion of the opening of Parliament.90 In October 1908 she, along
with two other women, had chained herself to the brass grille in the
Ladies' Gallery of the House of Commons, behind which, women were
discreetly hidden from the Members of Parliament. Shouting 'Votes for
Women' she and her fellow fighters for women's' suffrage, was carried
out attached to the grille which had to be removed91. In 1909 she again
dropped leaflets over London from a balloon painted 'Votes for Women'
arguing that a proposed petition to the Prime Minister on women's'
suffrage was constitutional. During the Dublin lockout of 1913, Matters,
together with Dora Montefiore, later a founding member of the
Communist Party of Great Britain,92 became involved in helping the
children of the workers led by Larkin and Connolly.93 In Dublin Matters
had tried unsuccessfully to find a Montessori teacher and later decided to
be trained by Montessori herself.
It would be illegitimate of course to infer from the political orientation of
a few that of the many. But there is some evidence that the Montessori
movement in England, if not elsewhere, was inextricably bound up with
the gender politics of the early twentieth century. The National Union of
Teachers' journal, the paradoxically but nonetheless significantly named
Schoolmaster carried attacks on Montessorimania whereas the women in
the NFWT who were soon to break away from the NUT over the issue of
equal pay, tended to support Montessori's ideas.94 Montessori's book The
Montessori Method has many references to the freedom and
emancipation of the child, the working class and of women and as Kean
observes NFWT teachers drew parallels between advocacy of freedom
for the child and their own struggle for freedom as 'disenfranchised
citizens'.95
ConclusionEvidence concerning the views that these men held regarding women's
suffrage or women's emancipation in general is sparse. There are some
grounds, however, for holding the view that the efforts of male allies of
the women in the movements were appreciated and welcomed. On the
death of the influential HMI Joshua Fitch, for example, the Froebel
Council agreed to send condolences to Lady Fitch on her husband's
death. The relevant minute read that Council, "wishes to express its sense
of the continuous and enlightened support which Sir Joshua always gave
to movements in which women were specially concerned.96. What is
interesting about this is that Fitch's support for the kindergarten was far
from unqualified but that the Froebelians as women, a rare identity,
rather than as interpreters of Froebel wished to send their condolences.
Initially, the men considered here performed acts of representation on
behalf of women in the public sphere though sometimes they did so in
association with women. This was because women were excluded from
representing themselves. It is in this context that the Bryce Commission
was so innovative as for the first time three women were permitted to
serve on a Royal Commission in order to represent women's views.
Because women were excluded they lacked to a certain extent access to
the networks of power that traversed the fields of educational policy
making and administration. The men therefore were conduits between the
public and private
Later, as the struggle of women intensified with the eruption of militancy
orchestrated by the WPSU women became hostile to their being
represented by men. I think this goes some way to explaining the
differences that may be detected between the Froebelians and the
Montessorians. Emily Shirreff struggled hard for women's education but
by the time Montessori arrived the context was changing. Education for
women had been to a considerable extent conceded. Moreover,
Montessori believed she was and acted as if she was equal to men. Emily
Shirreeff, on the otherhand may have been the leader of the deputation to
Mundella but it was the men that did all the talking.
If then in its initial phase in England the Montessori movement was
closely related to the feminist struggle the decline of that struggle after
the First War with its concomitant effects on women teachers 97 may
account, if only in part, for the rapid evaporation of support and
enthusiasm for Montessorianism during the post war period.
The story of the men is one therefore that is impossible to disentangle
form the stories of the women and the causes they supported.
1 P. Ricoeur. Freud and philosophy : an essay on interpretation (NewHaven ; London, 1970).2 J. Reyer. Friedrich Fröbel, the profession of Kindergarten teacher andthe bourgeois women's movement West European Education 21,2,(1989), 29-44.A. T. Allen. Spiritual Motherhood: German Feminists and theKindergarten Movement 1848-1911 History of Education Quarterly22,3, (1982), 319-339.A. T. Allen. "Let us live with our children": Kindergarten movements inGermany and the United States, 1840-1914 History of EducationQuarterly 28,1, (1988), 23-48.3 S. Walby. From private to public patriarchy Women's StudiesInternational Forum 13,1/2, (1990), 91-104.4 S. K. Kent. Sex and suffrage in Britain 1860-1914 (London, 1990).5 A. T. Allen. "Let us live with our children": Kindergarten movementsin Germany and the United States, 1840-1914 History of EducationQuarterly 28,1, (1988), 23-48. A similar point is made by Steedman alsoC. Steedman. Childhood Culture and Class in Britain: MargaretMcMillan 1860-1931 (London, 1990).6 See further C. Steedman. The mother made conscious - The historicaldevelopment of a primary-school pedagogy History Workshop Journal20, (1985), 149-163.7 J. Ronge & B. Ronge. A Practical Guide to the English Kindergarten(London, 1865).8 B. M. v. B. Marenholtz-Buelow. Woman's Educational Mission: beingan explanation of F. Fröbel's System of Infant Gardens (London, 1855).9 E. Shirreff. Intellectual Education and its Influence on the Characterand Happiness of Women (London, 1858).10 R. Kramer. Maria Montessori: A Biography (Oxford, 1968).E. Standing. Maria Montessori her Life and Work (London, 1957).11 Standing does record however Montessori's attendance at a feministcongress in Berlin in 1896 and at another held inn London in 1900.E.Standing. Maria Montessori her Life and Work (London, 1957).12 J. N. Burstyn. Maria Montessori History of Education Quarterly 19,1,(1979), 143-149.13 J. N. Burstyn. Maria Montessori History of Education Quarterly19,1, (1979), 143-149.14 S. Cohen. Educating the children of the urban poor Maria Montessoriand her method Education and Urban Society 1,1, (1968), 61-79.15 M. Montessori. The Montessori Method (New York, 1912).16 M. Montessori. The Montessori Method (New York, 1912).
17 T. Eagleton. Ideology (London, 1991).18 S. Radice. The New Children: Talks with Dr Maria Montessori(London, nd).19 W. Boyd.'The Montessori system' in (eds. J. Adams),EducationalMovements and Methods (London, 1924),49-62.W. Boyd. From Locke to Montessori (London, 1914).E. P. Culverwell. The Montessori Principles and Practice (London,1913).C. Grant. English Education and Dr Montessori (London, 1913).20 Times Educational Supplement 4th March 1914.21 Times Educational Supplement 7th December 1915).22 J. Reyer. Friedrich Fröbel, the profession of Kindergarten teacher andthe bourgeois women's movement West European Education 21,2,(1989), 29-44.T. S. Popkewitz. A Political Sociology of Educational Reform (NewYork, 1991).23 Froebel Society Minutes 1. 1874-187624 Frances Mary Buss, the founder of the North London CollegiateSchool, together with a German kindergartner, Miss Doreck ofWurttemburg, induced the College of Preceptors to run a course oflectures on Froebel.25 Froebel Soc Minutes 20th March 1899. He became a member of theJoint Board Minutes 16th October 1899 He resigned from the Council inApril 1900 citing "in consequence of his time being so fully and at thesame time so irregularly occupied". Froebel Soc Minutes 9th April 1900.26 And even then they continued to face barriers to their acceptance. See:K. Middlemass. Pursuit of Pleasure (London, 1977). and T. M.Endelman. Communal solidarity among the Jewish elite of VictorianLondon Victorian Studies 28,3, (1985), 491-526. .27 M. V. Hughes. A London Home in the 1890's. (Oxford, 1978).28 For such a view see M. E. Sadler.'The Unrest in Secondary Education.In Germany and Elsewhere' in (eds. B. o. Education),Special Reports onEducational Subjects. (London, 1902a),ix-167.29
30 W. C. R. Hicks. Lady Barn House and the Work of W. H. Herford, etc.[With "The School: essay towards humane education by W. H. Herford"and with a portrait.] (Manchester, 1936).31 K. J. Brehony.'Co-education: perspectives and debates in the earlytwentieth century' in (eds. R. Deem),Co-education Reconsidered (MiltonKeynes, 1984),1-20.
32 P. Woodham-Smith.'History of the Froebel Movement in England' in(eds. E. Lawrence),Friedrich Froebel And English Education (London,1952),34-94.33 Froebel Society Minutes II 1876-1882 12th June 188034 Froebel Society Minutes II 1876-1882 24th June 188035 quoted in J. Murphy. Church, State and Schools in Britain, 1800-1970(London, 1971).36 Anon. In Memoriam Alfred Bourne Child Life X,38, (1908), 67.37 International Health Exhibition. The Health Exhibition Literature(London, 1884).38 K. J. Brehony.'Revising Froebel: English Revisionist Froebelians AndThe Schooling Of The Urban Poor' in (eds. P. Hirsch & M.Hilton),Practical Visionaries: Women, Education and Social Progress1790-1930. (London, forthcoming),39 W. H. Herford. The Student's Froebel (London, 1905).40 E. R. Murray. A Story of Infant Schools and Kindergartens (London,1912).41 Froebel Society Minutes 7th May 1886.42 Lyschinska held the post of Superintendent of Method in InfantSchools at the London School Board.43 Froebel Soc Minutes 17th May 188644 PP. 1886. XXV. op. cit. Q. 10,570.45 Woodham Smith P. Woodham-Smith.'History of the FroebelMovement in England' in (eds. E. Lawrence),Friedrich Froebel AndEnglish Education (London, 1952),34-94. claimed that Bourne and MrsBuxton presented 'a series of resolutions' to the Cross Commission butnone appeared as memorials in its report.46 G. P. Collins. The contribution of the British and Foreign SchoolSociety to the Kindergarten movement from 1868 to 1907 with particularreference to Stockwell and Saffron Walden training colleges (1984).47 Lydia Manley (1847-1911) was appointed head teacher at Stockwell in1884 to replace Eleonore Heerwart and she became the principal of thecollege in 1892. In 1900 she became a member of the first ConsultativeCommittee of the Board of Education (PRO ED 24/186) and the authorof an obituary described her as an 'able adviser in State methods ofeducation'. Times Educational Supplement. August 1. 1911. A. H. Wood,the secretary to the Consultative Committee (1907-1909) described her asa useful member of the Consultative Committee, 'not merely as an experton Training College questions but indirectly through her practicalexperience of the product of Elementary and Secondary schools'. PROED 24/218 Wood to Morant 14/9/1911.48 Froebel Society Minutes 10th Jan 1890
49 K. J. Brehony. 'Even far distant Japan is 'showing an interest' Historyof Education 27,3, (1998), 279-295.50 Claude Montefiore was a great grandson of Mayer Amschel deRothschild (1818-1874) the founder of the English branch of theRothschilds. DNB p. 264.51 For Magnus and his role in the education of Montefiore see: Foden, F.(1970) Philip Magnus. London, Valentine, Mitchell. pp. 45-46. andCohen, L. (1940) Some Recollections of Claude Goldsmid Montefiore,1858-1938. London, Faber and Faber. p. 37. R. Sebag-Montefiore. AFamily Patchwork (London, 1987).52 T. M. Endelman. Communal solidarity among the Jewish elite ofVictorian London Victorian Studies 28,3, (1985), 491-526.53 DNB p. 625.54 Montefiore attended his first Committee meeting 16th Feb 1884.(Froebel Soc Minutes)55 The resignation letter from Montefiore was read. Due to ill health hewas to be absent from England from November to April. "he would beglad to help the work from a material point of view quite as much asheretofore." Froebel Soc Minutes 19th Oct 1903. See also Child Life. Vol.VI. No. 21. 1904 p. 4956 Froebel Soc Minutes 21st November 189257 L. Cohen. Some Recollections of Claude Goldsmid Montefiore, 1858-1938 (London, 1940).58 .Froebel Soc Minutes15th March 189759 P. Woodham-Smith.'History of the Froebel Movement in England' in(eds. E. Lawrence),Friedrich Froebel And English Education (London,1952),34-94.60 The loan was later converted into a gift. L. Cohen. Some Recollectionsof Claude Goldsmid Montefiore, 1858-1938 (London, 1940).61 P. Woodham-Smith.'History of the Froebel Movement in England' in(eds. E. Lawrence),Friedrich Froebel And English Education (London,1952),34-94.62 K. J. Brehony.'Revising Froebel: English Revisionist Froebelians AndThe Schooling Of The Urban Poor' in (eds. P. Hirsch & M.Hilton),Practical Visionaries: Women, Education and Social Progress1790-1930. (London, forthcoming),63 K. J. Brehony.'Revising Froebel: English Revisionist Froebelians AndThe Schooling Of The Urban Poor' in (eds. P. Hirsch & M.Hilton),Practical Visionaries: Women, Education and Social Progress1790-1930. (London, forthcoming),
64 Lyschinska cited in I. M. Lilley. The Dissemination of FroebelianDoctrines and Methods in the English System of Elementary Education.1854 to 1914 (London, 1963).65 Davies was chair of the School Management Committee of theLondon School Board66 Froebel Society Minutes 21 October 189567 G. Alderman. London Jewry and London politics, 1889-1986 (London; New York, 1989).68 D. Rubinstein. Annie Besant and Stewart Headlam: The LondonSchool Board Election of 1888 East London Papers 13,1, (1970), 3-24.69 L. Cohen. Some Recollections of Claude Goldsmid Montefiore, 1858-1938 (London, 1940).70 Holmes gave an account of Hawker's discovery of Montessori in E. G.A. Holmes. New Ideals in Education New Ideals Quarterly 5,1, (1931),5-11.71 An account by Lydbetter appeared as E. Ledbetter. The MontessoriSystem Child Study 6,3, (1913), 54.72 Times Educational Supplement 5th November 191273 E. G. A. Holmes. New Ideals in Education New Ideals Quarterly 5,1,(1931), 5-11..74 He was also the brother of Constance Lytton a member of the militantWomen's Social and Political Union who became an invalid as the resultof force feedingR. C. C. Strachey. The cause : a short history of thewomen's movement in Great Britain (London, 1978).75 Times Educational Supplement 4 August 191476 A biographical note on Claremont appeared in Communications No 4,1991 : 26.77 C. A. Claremont.'The Montessori movement in England' in (eds. F.Watson),The Encyclopaedia and Dictionary of Education (London,1922),1123-1124.78 Communications No 4 1991:2679 H. Kean . Deeds not words the lives of suffragette teachers (London,1990).80 S. Stanley Holton. Suffrage Days (London, 1996).81 For Baillie Weaver see L. Stanley, A. Morley & G. Colmore. The lifeand death of Emily Wilding Davison : a biographical detective story(London, 1988). As Chair of the Theosophical Trust he was closelyconnected with St Christopher School, Letchworth See Brehony, K.J. ‘ADedicated Spiritual Movement’: Theosophists and Education 1875-1939.Faiths and Education, XIX International Standing Conference for theHistory of Education at National University of Ireland Maynooth. 3rd-6thSeptember. 1997 Unpublished.
82 L. Stanley, A. Morley & G. Colmore. The life and death of EmilyWilding Davison : a biographical detective story (London, 1988).83 C. S. Bremner. Women teachers as suffragists Journal of EducationXXX,July, (1908), 456-7.84 Froebel Society Minutes85 Froebel Society Minutes 20th Jan 190286 Froebel Society Minutes 21st April 190287 Kean , 1990 #2751: 51]88 Brehony, K. J. 'Individual work: Montessori and English EducationPolicy, 1909-1939'.Paper given to Division F American EducationResearch Association Annual Meeting, New Orleans April. 1994.Unpublished paper.
89 H. Kean . Deeds not words the lives of suffragette teachers (London,1990). 19-2190 R. Fulford. Votes for Women (London, 1957).91 R. Fulford. Votes for Women (London, 1957).:191,E. S. Pankhurst.The Suffragette Movement (London, 1977).]92 D. B. Montefiore. From a Victorian to a modern (London, 1927).93 E. S. Pankhurst. The Home Front (London, 1987).C. D. Greaves. The Life and Times of James Connolly (London, 1972).E. Larkin. James Larkin (London, 1965).S. Levenson. James Connolly (London, 1973).94 H. Kean . Deeds not words the lives of suffragette teachers (London,1990). :51-295 H. Kean. Challenging the state? : the socialist and feministeducational experience, 1900-1930 (London ; New York, 1990).96 Froebel Soc Minutes 20th July 190397 H. Kean . Deeds not words the lives of suffragette teachers (London,1990).: 99-113]
top related